The Federal Bureau of Investigation is reportedly beginning an internal investigation into explosive allegations that, under former Director James Comey, the bureau authorized a covert “honeypot” operation aimed at infiltrating Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign — an accusation that, if substantiated, could mark one of the most controversial intelligence abuses in modern U.S. political history.
According to a report by The Washington Times, the FBI is examining claims brought forward by a whistleblower who alleges that in 2015 — months before the official launch of the FBI’s well-known “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation — senior FBI leadership approved and personally directed an off-the-books operation targeting then-candidate Trump shortly after he announced his bid for the presidency.
At the center of the allegations is a claim that two female FBI agents were embedded into the Trump campaign and instructed to act as so-called “honeypots” — undercover operatives who feign romantic or personal interest in targets in order to extract information or gain access to inner circles.
Whistleblower Disclosure Raises Alarming Questions
The allegations were first revealed in a whistleblower disclosure submitted to the House Judiciary Committee last year and later obtained by Fox News Digital. The whistleblower, described as a current FBI employee, claimed direct knowledge of the operation and stated that former FBI Director James Comey had personally ordered and overseen the investigation.
According to the disclosure, the operation was never formally logged into FBI systems, bypassed normal oversight mechanisms, and involved agents traveling with Trump and senior campaign staff under false pretenses. The whistleblower alleged that the agents successfully gained access to high levels of the campaign, raising profound concerns about the politicization of federal law enforcement during a presidential election.
Perhaps most troubling, the whistleblower asserted that FBI personnel involved in the operation were later explicitly instructed never to discuss it — even with others who participated — effectively sealing the operation from internal scrutiny.
Operation Allegedly Shut Down After Media Exposure Threat
The whistleblower further claimed that the operation abruptly ended after a media outlet reportedly obtained a photograph of one of the undercover agents and prepared to publish it. Fearing exposure, the FBI allegedly terminated the operation before it could become public.
If accurate, this detail suggests that the operation was not only sensitive but also potentially unauthorized or legally questionable — raising questions about why its exposure would pose such a severe institutional risk.
The Washington Times reported that the current FBI leadership is now actively searching for personnel connected to the operation in order to determine whether federal laws, internal regulations, or constitutional safeguards were violated.
FBI Declines Comment as Investigation Begins
When reached for comment, the FBI issued a brief statement to Fox News Digital, saying only: “The FBI has no comment.”
The bureau’s silence comes amid growing scrutiny from lawmakers and the public, particularly given the FBI’s troubled recent history involving political investigations, surveillance abuses, and credibility crises.
New FBI Director Kash Patel Promises Reckoning
The reported review comes just days after Kash Patel was sworn in as FBI director following a contentious confirmation process. Patel, a former federal prosecutor and intelligence official, has been outspoken in his criticism of what he describes as the “weaponization” of federal law enforcement agencies.
At his swearing-in ceremony on February 21, 2025, Patel vowed to restore public trust in the bureau and pursue accountability wherever wrongdoing is found.
“The politicization of our justice system has eroded public trust — but that ends today,” Patel told Fox News Digital. “Let good cops be cops. And rebuild trust in the FBI.”
Patel emphasized that accountability would not be selective or partisan, stating that misconduct would be investigated “in every corner of this planet,” a remark that was widely interpreted as a warning to current and former officials alike.
“Working alongside the dedicated men and women of the bureau and our partners, we will rebuild an FBI the American people can be proud of,” Patel added.
Patel’s History With the Russia Investigation
Patel’s appointment has drawn particular attention because of his previous role as chief investigator for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during its probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
During that investigation, Patel played a central role in uncovering abuses related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), including the FBI and Department of Justice’s use of flawed and unverified information to obtain surveillance warrants against individuals connected to the Trump campaign.
Those findings later formed the basis for Inspector General reports that confirmed serious procedural failures, omissions, and misrepresentations to federal courts.
Supporters argue that Patel’s background makes him uniquely qualified to evaluate the alleged honeypot operation, while critics claim his prior involvement could compromise perceptions of neutrality.
Separate From “Crossfire Hurricane,” But Deeply Connected
Importantly, the alleged honeypot operation is said to be distinct from the FBI’s officially acknowledged 2016 investigation known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” which examined whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election.
Crossfire Hurricane began in July 2016 and later came under intense scrutiny after it was revealed that the investigation relied in part on the now-discredited Steele dossier — opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
If the whistleblower’s claims are accurate, the honeypot operation would predate Crossfire Hurricane by months and suggest that the FBI’s interest in Trump began well before any formal intelligence predicate was established.
Such a revelation would dramatically alter the public understanding of how and why federal authorities began scrutinizing a major party presidential candidate.
Comey’s Role Under Renewed Scrutiny
Former FBI Director James Comey, who led the bureau from 2013 until his dismissal by President Trump in May 2017, has long been a polarizing figure. While praised by some for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, Comey has been sharply criticized for what opponents describe as selective enforcement and political bias.
The whistleblower’s claim that Comey personally directed the honeypot operation, if substantiated, would place the former director at the center of a potentially unprecedented abuse of power.
Comey has not publicly responded to the specific allegations.
Trump Fires Comey, Mueller Appointed
President Trump fired Comey in May 2017, citing loss of confidence and what he described as Comey’s mishandling of major investigations. Days later, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.
After nearly two years of investigation, Mueller concluded that there was no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election — a finding that significantly undercut the original premise of Crossfire Hurricane.
Broader Implications for Law Enforcement and Democracy
The reported honeypot allegations strike at the heart of longstanding concerns about the role of intelligence agencies in democratic elections. If a federal law enforcement agency secretly inserted undercover operatives into a presidential campaign without clear legal authorization, critics argue it would represent a grave threat to civil liberties and electoral integrity.
Legal experts note that while undercover operations are a legitimate law enforcement tool, deploying them against a political campaign — especially without judicial oversight — would raise constitutional red flags, including potential violations of the First Amendment and separation of powers.
What Happens Next
As of now, the investigation remains internal, and no findings have been publicly released. It is unclear whether criminal referrals will be made or whether congressional committees will launch additional inquiries.
However, with new leadership at the FBI and renewed scrutiny from lawmakers, the allegations are unlikely to fade quietly.
Whether the reported investigation confirms or debunks the whistleblower’s claims, the outcome could have far-reaching consequences — not only for the FBI’s leadership legacy but also for the public’s confidence in the impartial enforcement of justice.
As Director Patel has repeatedly emphasized, restoring trust may depend less on rhetoric and more on whether accountability is pursued without fear or favor — even when it reaches into the highest levels of power.
